SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 16-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE
v
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7306 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ]
Judiciary:
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1979: r.‘5’ – Major penalties – Quantum of punishment –
Justification of – Allegation that judicial officer had proximate
relationship with a lady lawyer – Certain judicial orders passed in
favour of lawyers’ clients, her relatives – Dismissal order of judicial
officer – Upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: Officer
decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady
lawyer and not because the law required him to do so – This is also
gratification of a different kind – Judicial Officer concerned did
not live upto the expectations of integrity, behavior and probity
expected of him – His conduct is as such that no leniency can be
shown – Thus, the punishment of dismissal from service was justified.
Judicial officer – Standard of conduct – Expectation of –
Held: Judge is judged by his quality of judgments as also by the
quality and purity of his character – Impeccable integrity should
be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge – One who
stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible – That is
the high standard which is expected of Judges.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first and foremost quality required in a
Judge is integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much
higher than in other institutions. The judiciary is an institution
whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is,
therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the
sterling quality of integrity. The behavior of a Judge has to be of
an exacting standard, both inside and outside the Court. Judges
are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 109
109
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his
quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his
character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public
and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over
others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which
is expected of Judges. Judges must remember that they are not
merely employees but hold high public office. A judge must decide
the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law
applicable to the case. If a judge decides a case for any extraneous
reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with
law. The word ‘gratification’ does not only mean monetary
gratification. Gratification can be of various types. It can be
gratification of money, gratification of power, gratification of lust
etc.,etc. [Para 6-11][112-D, F, H; 113-A-B, F-G]
1.2 In the instant case, the officer decided the cases because
of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because
the law required him to do so. This is also gratification of a different
kind. The Judicial Officer concerned did not live upto the
expectations of integrity, behavior and probity expected of him.
His conduct is as such that no leniency can be shown and he
cannot be visited with a lesser punishment.[Para 11, 12]
[113-H; 114-A]
Tarak Singh v. JyotiBasu (2005) 1 SCC 201; Daya
Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and Others (1987)
3 SCC 19; R. C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 58 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 1 SCC 201
referred to
Para 6
(1987) 3 SCC 19
referred to
Para 7
(2012) 8 SCC 58
referred to
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7306
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2015  of the  High
Court  of  Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2010.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
111
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Anisha Mathur,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a
Judicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985. On 08.02.2001, he was put under
suspension and dismissed from service on 15.01.2004. The appellant
challenged his writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was
dismissed. Notice was issued in the special leave petition on 14.12.2015
limited to the question of quantum 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.